CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2007

Kuwaiti Engineering Group v. Consortium of International Consultants, LLC

The case involved a Kuwaiti corporation, as plaintiff, seeking to enforce a contract and alleging tortious interference with its contract rights against defendants Safege Consulting Engineers (French) and Consortium of International Consultants, LLC (Delaware). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. The court found New York an inconvenient forum because the consulting work was primarily performed in Kuwait, negotiations were only partly in New York, and the alleged interference occurred outside New York. The decision was conditioned upon the defendants' consent to jurisdiction in Kuwait and France. The court affirmed the dismissal but denied Safege's request for sanctions, deeming the plaintiff's appeal not frivolous.

forum non conveniensKuwaitFrancecontract disputetortious interferenceinternational lawjurisdictiondismissalappellate courtNew York Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Swindell v. Burns & Roe Construction Co.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed based on two primary grounds. The first ground cited CPLR 5511, stating that an appeal cannot be taken from an order of the Appellate Division which dismissed an appeal from an order entered on consent. The second reason for dismissal was that the Appellate Division's order, which denied the motion for reargument or leave to appeal, does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore, the court found no basis for further appeal in this matter.

Motion for leave to appealAppellate DivisionDismissed AppealConsent OrderReargumentCPLR 5511Final DeterminationConstitutional LawProcedural LawAppellate Procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ8205468 ADJ8393473
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

SHARO LEYVA vs. KIMCO STAFFING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration by a lien claimant against Kimco Staffing. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Additional grounds for dismissal included the petition's lack of verification, improper service, and failure to state valid grounds for reconsideration. Had these defects not existed, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013VerifiedProperly ServedGrounds for ReconsiderationMeritsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ10387444, ADJ10387443
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

TERESA GALLEGOS vs. OMEGA EXTRUDING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Teresa Gallegos' petition for reconsideration. The petition was deemed "skeletal" for failing to specify grounds, cite evidence, or articulate legal principles. Additionally, it was dismissed for lack of proof of service on the adverse party, Omega Extruding Corporation. The Board noted that even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartyLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852Labor Code § 5905
References
7
Case No. ADJ10321458, ADJ10211354
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

JORGE GALVAN vs. DORADO DESIGN CONSTRUTCTION, INC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Jorge Galvan's petition for reconsideration before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board is dismissing the petition because it was filed without proof of service on an adverse party, Solimon Rodgers, as required by Labor Code Section 5905. The failure to provide proof of service is sufficient grounds for dismissal. Even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceAdverse PartyDismissalLabor Code § 5905Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDorado Design ConstructionState Compensation Insurance FundSolimon Rodgers
References
0
Case No. ADJ7574832
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

KATKI MOLLOY vs. COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, AND INDIVIDUALS, MANUFACTURERS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Katki Molloy's Petition for Removal and dismissed her Petition for Disqualification. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which detailed the grounds for denial and dismissal. The WCAB also admonished the applicant's attorney for violating the Board's Rules in their petition. No grounds for disqualification were stated, leading to its dismissal.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ ReportAdmonishmentViolation of RulesDismissalDenialSan Jose District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ10449372
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

ORRO MEJIA vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., MCLANE MANUFACTURING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petition was dismissed primarily because it was filed one day late, rendering it untimely. Furthermore, the petition was deemed "skeletal" as it failed to adequately detail the grounds for reconsideration or specifically reference the record and legal principles. Even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the Board indicated it would have been denied on the merits, agreeing with the Workers' Compensation Judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalSkeletal PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board RulesGrounds for DismissalUntimely FilingProof of MailingWCAB
References
11
Case No. ADJ10680590, ADJ10680591
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

HYUNMI KIM vs. SHERRY PRECISION DENTAL ART, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal" and failed to meet the specific requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules. The petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite specific evidence, or fairly state all material evidence relative to the disputed findings. Despite the WCAB acknowledging the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE made the order final, the petition's lack of specificity was sufficient grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration.

ADJ10680590ADJ10680591WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionFinal OrderAOE/COELabor Code 5902Rule 10842Rule 10846
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 16,762 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational